DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:39 pm**

Ultimately I believe you're right, and at some point, according to the Bible, we will have to survive under an oppressive world government. What that means for now is something I've thought about, but never come to any clear conclusion on. I know 2 things for sure: 1) the elements in our government that push towards totalitarianism do so, at this time, contrary to the laws we still have, and contrary to our constitution, which remains essentially intact; and 2) People are being deceived en-mass into accepting it. That puts me in the right, legally, until they do away with the constitution. When the laws of this country are no longer in my favor, you'd have a point. At that point I'd probably have to pick myself up off of the concentration-camp floor and decide to pick my battles more carefully.

Put succinctly, if foolishness is the new order, I choose mal-adaptive. When oppression is the new order, I will adapt. Let's just hope I handle the transition with grace.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:26 pm**

Yeah, but there are somethings to consider. Such as employment. Many people were/are pissed that major commerce and industry was sent overseas. The flip side of that is that also all the pollution that comes along with it went to. Americans, if they become pioneers again will do fine in this new order. If they sit on their butts waiting for handouts, we will all be perceived as worthless slaves. I just enrolled in adult education classes and will have my GED soon. As soon as I accomplish that, I am obtaining a college education and living where they live so fine, this place is a dump. Only way to affect change now is to become a self-portraitist just as Van Gogh. You have to become like them while maintaining the mind of Christ. Revolution and that mindset at this point will doom us. Christ at his heart was a pacifist and I will make myself one too, but i will never compromise the truth.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:37 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Ultimately I believe you're right, and at some point, according to the Bible, we will have to survive under an oppressive world government. What that means for now is something I've thought about, but never come to any clear conclusion on. I know 2 things for sure: 1) the elements in our government that push towards totalitarianism do so, at this time, contrary to the laws we still have, and contrary to our constitution, which remains essentially intact; and 2) People are being deceived en-mass into accepting it. That puts me in the right, legally, until they do away with the constitution. When the laws of this country are no longer in my favor, you'd have a point. At that point I'd probably have to pick myself up off of the concentration-camp floor and decide to pick my battles more carefully.

Put succinctly, if foolishness is the new order, I choose mal-adaptive. When oppression is the new order, I will adapt. Let's just hope I handle the transition with grace.

Question, do you think Capitalism can lead to Totalitarianism? If you say "no", why do you think our government is moving towards "Totalitarianism" when it's already owned by the corporations and a powerful few, who want nothing but Capitalism so they can make more money?

I don't buy your "one world government" fear either, at least along the lines of a conventional government by the people or even a single despot. Nations just can get along long enough to agree on anything or live by the rules of others, especially in THIS country. Between religious differences and cultural differences, it just wouldn't happen. Your argument in specious. As Americans, we are far too independent and resistant to change for our own good, and that does have it's benefits in many cases. BUT, if global Capitalism were to reign, what would stop those few powerful people from enslaving most of the planet's population to do their bidding, when any particular nation could become another labor pool to use or discard for profit?

However, with the attitude you and most other conservatives have towards a little prodding, or even forcing, people to make fundamental changes in their lives to protect our own planet for our own prodigy in their future, we WILL all end up as victims of our mal-adaption and self indulgence.

flip, you do realize that Van Gogh was so poor he had to live off his brother all his life, that his family thought he was a loser and that his paintings sucked, that he was mentally ill, deranged and committed self-mutilation and that a few local kids who constantly targeted and tormented him may actually have been the ones that accidentally shot him to death, not from suicide as originally thought?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... sts-death/

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:01 pm**

Yes, I do know that, but he was a self-portraitist, which was my point

EDIT: He put his face everywhere.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:06 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Question, do you think Capitalism can lead to Totalitarianism?

No, I think that trying to blame an economic idea for a governmental idea is absurd. I think that capitalism is a system of commerce which occurs and thrives most naturally under non-totalitarian rule. And that's about where the two cease to have anything to do with each other.

tunnelcat wrote:However, with the attitude you and most other conservatives have towards a little prodding, or even forcing, people to make fundamental changes in their lives to protect our own planet for our own prodigy in their future, we WILL all end up as victims of our mal-adaption and self indulgence.

Only an idiot keeps arguing after the second dodge...

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:15 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Question, do you think Capitalism can lead to Totalitarianism?
No, I think that trying to blame an economic idea for a governmental idea is absurd. I think that capitalism is a system of commerce which occurs and thrives most naturally under non-totalitarian rule. And that's about where the two cease to have anything to do with each other.

No, Capitalism can be subject to the same foibles as Socialism. Power concentrated in the hands of the few being misused, or abused. You can't get around that pesky human nature. No system is exempt from corruption, even the system of commerce. In fact, especially the system of commerce. Who do you think is running our government NOW? It sure ain't the commies at the moment.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:However, with the attitude you and most other conservatives have towards a little prodding, or even forcing, people to make fundamental changes in their lives to protect our own planet for our own prodigy in their future, we WILL all end up as victims of our mal-adaption and self indulgence.
Only an idiot keeps arguing after the second dodge...

And only a closed-minded person goes into denial.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:20 pm**

Well, if you know that there are only a few people in power, why not curry their favor? Instead of spitting in their faces.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:26 pm**

not exalt yourself in the king’s presence,
and do not claim a place among his great men;
7 it is better for him to say to you, “Come up here,”
than for him to humiliate you before his nobles.

What you have seen with your eyes
8 do not bring[a] hastily to court,
for what will you do in the end
if your neighbor puts you to shame?

9 If you take your neighbor to court,
do not betray another’s confidence,
10 or the one who hears it may shame you
and the charge against you will stand.

11 Like apples of gold in settings of silver
is a ruling rightly given.
12 Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold
is the rebuke of a wise judge to a listening ear.

13 Like a snow-cooled drink at harvest time
is a trustworthy messenger to the one who sends him;
he refreshes the spirit of his master.
14 Like clouds and wind without rain
is one who boasts of gifts never given.

15 Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:48 pm**

@ TunnelCat You know, I was going to reply to some points, but you dodged twice and if you can't even admit that then I don't have the patience to handle that in anything like a gracious way today. I probably should have stopped two posts ago.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:22 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:People can deny the changes that are now becoming evident all they want, but they do so at the peril of all of humanity.
The only peril that all of humanity is facing, is the acceptance of totalitarianism as the alternative to "Global Warming".

So promoting alternative energy sources equates to totalitarianism...how, exactly?

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:26 pm**

I don't want to be too presumptious so I'll answer for myself. The fact is that there are people who rule this country and the world. They are not necessarily evil men but they are altruistic, they cannot help if everyone else does not recognize the biggest problems this world faces, so they make decisions unashamedly. The goal should not be too attack those men, but to get them to look after us. Why would they look after ignorant people who hate them? Things would get better if they had more confidence in this constituency.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:47 am**

That doesn't answer my question, though. How is saying, "Okay, we need to lower CO2 emissions, so let's pursue cleaner energy sources," any different from saying, "Okay, air pollution is bad for everybody, so let's make sure that our cars emit fewer toxic gases"? Or "Okay, dumping toxic sludge in our rivers is terrible, so let's make sure that factories don't do it"? If you call pursuing alternative energy "totalitarian," you'd be saying the same thing about every other regulation or practice that tries to keep us from ★■◆●ing our planet up too badly.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:23 am**

flip wrote:I don't want to be too presumptious so I'll answer for myself. The fact is that there are people who rule this country and the world. They are not necessarily evil men but they are altruistic, they cannot help if everyone else does not recognize the biggest problems this world faces, so they make decisions unashamedly. The goal should not be too attack those men, but to get them to look after us. Why would they look after ignorant people who hate them? Things would get better if they had more confidence in this constituency.

I have two problem with that: 1) Every indication I've seen evidences that they are evil men. 2) I think there's good evidence that most of what people are calling the biggest problems, today, are fabricated crisises with only strains of truth. Another problem is that our government does not allow for rulers--it was instituted a government OF THE PEOPLE. If you could demonstrate how a usurpation of a system of delegated representative authority constitutes authority granted by God, then I'm all ears eyes.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:31 pm**

Ok, this might not make much sense to some, but I came back from Seattle with a different perspective. I couldn't get on my standby flight, so I decided to walk around Seattle port for a day. Now, I guess I stand out. I am a very observant person and as I was walking I saw 2 huge yachts parked back to back. One was named Van Gogh, the other Change Order and their was a group of men fellowshipping together from the 2 boats. Well, I stopped and stared at the one

and he threw his arm out and pointed to the back of his boat named "change order". So, Van Gogh's change order.
On my way back to the rail, I was followed and basically escorted back to the airport, I had made them though so when we got there the guy says, "thanks for riding with us", lol I said " Have a nice trip back"

Well, when I went through security, I was shuttled through the scanner, the only person who went through it and then I went up to wait for my next standby, which was supposed to be a direct flight to Atlanta, but somehow got changed to Baltimore then to Atlanta. I was given seat 1D right next to the cockpit in first class sitting right next to an Army Major. People like me do not sit there. Well, from the flight back from baltimore, this beautiful black stewardess was coming on to me. A old broke down hurting man

.
When I got off the plane and walked by her i said "goodbye pretty lady" and she mumbled "you should stay and get some", I just kept walking

. I am moving to Seattle now, I loved it up there and I found the whole thing somewhat exciting. My point, they ALREADY control everything, we should make them our friends.

EDIT: The main thought I am left with is that I must be careful and live my life with the utmost integrity.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:23 pm**

Hmm. We'll I'm just not impressed with what they're doing--essentially destroying the U.S. economy, along with many others in order to bring in their new order. I've always been of the opinion that you make friends for reasons of shared values. If it's for any other reason there usually ends of being requirements on the relationship that will make you regret your choice. As amiable of a fellow as I am in-person, I just can't go that far with someone who doesn't have some depth and at least a streak of decency. Friends? No. Now if someone's in authority, then getting along with them is a different matter. I think back to Daniel in the Bible.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:51 pm**

Exactly.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:03 pm**

flip wrote:Well, if you know that there are only a few people in power, why not curry their favor? Instead of spitting in their faces.

Hell no! Kissing the derrieres of the spoiled high and mighty is not my idea of entertainment. Seeing them grovel and work at an actual menial job or try to get that super expensive health care that they can no longer afford for their sick, tired bodies would be far more entertaining. I've said it before, schadenfreude! I'd like to see Romney actually put those blue jeans he likes to wear to actual use by digging a few ditches, for a year, with a single shovel and his bare hands.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:16 pm**

That's a very impetuous and near-sighted position.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:12 pm**

flip wrote: My point, they ALREADY control everything, we should make them our friends.

.

funny, I've been trying to tell folks the same thing for YEARS.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:21 pm**

flip wrote:Ok, this might not make much sense to some, but I came back from Seattle with a different perspective.

I'll be in Seattle/Bellevue next week. I'm definitely looking forward to it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:03 am**

Make sure to plan for at least one day on the waterfront. It's beautiful down there and great food too!

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:26 pm**

flip wrote:That's a very impetuous and near-sighted position.

Why? Someone like Mitt Romney has never had to do any physical work for a living. Pity the poor billionaire. All he's ever known is wealth and comfort, courtesy of his father, all at the expense of moving around the jobs of others. He's a spoiled trust fund baby who's had everything handed to him on a silver platter and who's never known adversity. He's always had money, a nice home and all the necessities he could want or need. I have NO respect for him because he didn't work hard to attain what he has. Everything he started with was GIVEN to him, not earned.

Someone wealthy I DO respect might be either Bill Hewlett, or Dave Packard, who actually worked hard to come up with a product and became wealthy building a company that sold that product. That's the definition of an entrepreneur, certainly not a vulture capitalist like Romney who deals out people's jobs like cards in a deck and discards those he doesn't want. Why do you think the estate tax was brought in during the Depression? To keep Patriarchal families from concentrating the wealth, becoming powerful despots in the political and financial arena and breeding an entire lineage of out-of-touch spoiled brats with delusions of grandeur like Romney from becoming king-for-eternity, AGAIN.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:53 pm**

More likely the estate tax was brought in so that they wouldn't have to deal with any new competition.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:48 pm**

Tc you do know Romney gave all of his inheritance away to charity?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:12 pm**

I wasn't talking about politicians, but at the very least he took what was handed to him and built on it instead of squandering. Obama has nothing to his credit but rhetoric and good game. No real accomplishments, otherwise he would have never said what he did.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:48 pm**

flip wrote:Make sure to plan for at least one day on the waterfront. It's beautiful down there and great food too!

Thanks, I'll try to check that out. I'll be in Bellevue most of the time, but I intend on escaping out to Seattle here and there.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:34 pm**

Heretic wrote:I'll think I go with the group that wants wind power than you bull★■◆●.

ok lets get this right.
I say that Coal is bad coz it's killing 10,000 ppl worldwide a year.
You say Coal is bad coz it's killing 10,000 ppl in USA alone per year.
You're basically saying it's even worse than my original conservative numbers.
We are saying the same thing, Coal is bad.

Then you start saying that what i say is bull★■◆●? And then imply that i'm against windpower?
Are you sure you're not just looking for someone to rage on? What did i do to you dude?

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:33 pm**

woodchip wrote:Tc you do know Romney gave all of his inheritance away to charity?

The Mormon Church ain't charity big guy...

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:18 pm**

The Mormon Church must be doing pretty good if Romney tithes 10% of his "income" to them every year. Charity my @$$.

I heard a funny statistic. Of the people who were going to vote for Obama, most of them personally liked him. Of the people who were going to vote for Romney, most of them said they were voting for him because they DIDN'T LIKE Obama, not because they liked Romney. So Romney voters are having to hold their collective noses to vote for a candidate they don't like very much, all because they HATE the other guy. Not a very ringing endorsement in the "I like my choice for candidate" department.

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:57 pm**

Hardly a new phenomenon though right?
There was huge "Anyone but Bush" feelings before that.
I mean Obama basically got a Nobel peace prize for "not being Bush", remember that?

I'd say it's another indicator that USA needs to upgrade it's electorial system to preferential voting (and thus weakening the "only 2 choices" system you're currently stuck with).... But my country has preferential voting and even we have meaningful "2 party preferred" polls - so it clearly doesn't completely eliminate the problem. It ends up simmering down into a few major parties, and a glorious cacophony of minor extremist parties that redirect their own votes into the major party that most closely matches them. But hey at least they can (and do) change affiliations constantly.
I think democracy is like this huge lesson to humanity that we're basically imbiciles

.

...Wait what was this thread about again?

Posted: **Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:29 am**

tunnelcat wrote:

certainly not a vulture capitalist like Romney who deals out people's jobs like cards in a deck and discards those he doesn't want.

And what do you call Obama whose administration just dissolved 20,000 white collar pension funds at Delphi while letting his union backers keep theirs?
How many jobs did Obama kill after the gulf oil spill? How many new people were added to the food stamp program under Obama's watch? How many people can't find jobs because of Obama's inept economic policies like stopping the Keystone pipeline? Romney, while losing some jobs because the busness was already too far gone to save, also created more jobs than Obama ever will.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:56 pm**

Don't give me that line! Who's been chopping all those PUBLIC SECTOR jobs? Republicans and their ceaseless anti-government, union busting crusades at the state level. Meanwhile, the private sector has been dragging it's feet, for no good reason. Uncertainty my rear end. They're the ones creating the uncertainty, along with the banks sitting on their money and not loaning out any money to individuals or businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -catch-22/

ABC News wrote:The vast majority of the public sector job losses have come at the state and local level, where balanced budget requirements coupled with plummeting tax revenues have caused many states to parse back the payrolls.

Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut. In 2011 alone, 113,000 jobs were cut in local schools, 68,000 jobs were cut in local government administration, and 78,000 jobs were cut in state government administration, according to a Commerce Department report.

“It’s the public sector that’s the thing contributing to that entire overall decline of jobs since he took office,” said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “It just wipes out a huge share of the job growth.”

But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure, a fact that Obama’s Republican rival Mitt Romney is quick to criticize.

And before you throw in the fact that Obama had a rise of the number of federal employees at my face, take a lookie at what Romney did as gov., the very same thing at the state level. The bastard's nothing but an unprincipled hack.

ABC News wrote:During Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007, he oversaw a oversaw a similar increase in the public sector, with the number of state government employees increasing 5.5 percent during his term, according to the Massachusetts Office of Labor and Workforce Development.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:38 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Don't give me that line! Who's been chopping all those PUBLIC SECTOR jobs? Republicans and their ceaseless anti-government, union busting crusades at the state level. Meanwhile, the private sector has been dragging it's feet, for no good reason. Uncertainty my rear end. They're the ones creating the uncertainty, along with the banks sitting on their money and not loaning out any money to individuals or businesses.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -catch-22/

ABC News wrote:The vast majority of the public sector job losses have come at the state and local level, where balanced budget requirements coupled with plummeting tax revenues have caused many states to parse back the payrolls.

Since Obama took office, 636,000 state and local jobs have been cut. In 2011 alone, 113,000 jobs were cut in local schools, 68,000 jobs were cut in local government administration, and 78,000 jobs were cut in state government administration, according to a Commerce Department report.

“It’s the public sector that’s the thing contributing to that entire overall decline of jobs since he took office,” said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “It just wipes out a huge share of the job growth.”

You do realize TC that the public sector state union pensions are the single biggest drain on a states economy? Kudos to the Republican governors that were able to rein in the union debilitating costs. As an aside would you care to look at what party the governors are that control the 17 states that are showing the most growth and and best budget health?

tunnelcat wrote:And before you throw in the fact that Obama had a rise of the number of federal employees at my face, take a lookie at what Romney did as gov., the very same thing at the state level. The bastard's nothing but an unprincipled hack.

ABC News wrote:During Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007, he oversaw a oversaw a similar increase in the public sector, with the number of state government employees increasing 5.5 percent during his term, according to the Massachusetts Office of Labor and Workforce Development.

[/quote]

I suspect TC that back then Mass. had a much healthier revenue flow and could afford to hire more people.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:06 pm**

You're forgetting the fact that the public unions in Wisconsin were willing to renegotiate their contracts in the face of budget problems. But noooo, Scott Walker wasn't interested in solving fiscal issues. All he wanted was to bust the unions and get rid of collective bargaining. His budget? Not so good, still.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... t-deficit/

Yes, cushy retirement accounts and health benefits are draining the states. But who's fault is that the states are now in dire straights? Who shipped our jobs overseas that funded the states? Why, no surprise, those sitting pretty in their castles with no mortgage concerns or health care woes who run the corporations and Wall Street, the very ones that caused the economic disaster with their desire for cheaper and cheaper labor and more and more profit. We're all victims of global arbitrage. The unions are not the problem, only the scapegoats. I ask you why does the sole onus seem to fall on working people, who are usually the first group asked, to sacrifice all their wages and benefits in bad times, that were negotiated in good faith when times were good. It's the same old saw. When the economy tanks, working people always seem to have to sacrifice far more of their lives than those sitting at the top of society.

Corporations right now are sitting on mountains of cash, that's right, they're flush right now, while doing nothing substantive with it to help the economy. Why do we ALL have to come DOWN to the lowest common denominator, cutting wages and benefits for those who work hard for a living, when those in the banks and Wall Street never even got put in jail for the crimes that brought us into this mess? Why can't solutions be found to raise everyone else UP, instead of shipping good jobs overseas and lowering everybody DOWN to dirt poor wages with no benefits through false resentment? Why destroy public jobs, when the private sector is NOT taking up the slack AT ALL, and putting more and more people out of work? These slimebags can do it, but they're making things so bad for people that they're hoping that a favored Plutocrat like Romney, will get voted in and set things up to grease their skids even more, permanently.

Posted: **Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:22 pm**

I'll back up TC's assertion with a factoid I can share: I own stock in at least 3 companies that have raised their dividends(two substantially) more than twice each over the past 3 years. In other words, the profit levels are huge for all three, and rather than hire when they need not do so, or enhance the domestic economy and risk lower profit margins, they are paying off the stockholders.
This is just wonderful news for us stockholders, BUT, the bottom line for most Americans is that they are, as TB cites, victims of the globalization of the economy. And, yes, very few of the beneficiaries give a crap any more, which is the major change of the past 25 years. When I was young, it was deemed part of being from inherited weath to be socially conscious. That has given way,
steadily, to a fortress mentality of pure greed, IMO. The sad part, as I've said many times in the past, is that the US populace has equally steadily become a collection of poorly educated, uninvolved, shortsighted rubes. And, the rubes have fallen for the BS that
unions, minority groups, immigrants and 'liberal media' are the cause of the decline of the US. All the while, I would say to them that Walt Kelly put it best(comic strip-Pogo): We have met the enemy, and he is us.

DescentBB

Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year

Re: Coal power is 2.5 Chernobyl disasters every single year